The end of media brands?

Column Upheavals in the media market are jeopardizing major brands. But the opposite is also true: the performance of brands is more important than ever, especially under tougher conditions. Consumer habits appear to be changing dramatically. Production processes are changing radically. New channels threaten to sideline traditional media. The search field for future-oriented business models is frighteningly broad and nebulous. International challenges are frightening. And historically evolved industry structures are being destroyed on a global scale.the tip of this threatening iceberg now has a name: Murdoch. And the most recently threatened Titanic is called the Wall Street Journal. The NZZ is torn: "In principle, the media industry is not exempt from innovations that go hand in hand with changes in ownership structures," it reassures itself. Nevertheless, it sees above all the dangers of such takeovers: "The danger posed by Murdoch is quite simply that in future years he will sacrifice the standard and unruly tradition of the Wall Street Journal to global market success."
Profit maximization therefore threatens to destroy product quality - this is the astonishing fear of the liberal conscience from Zurich. Actually, the opposite logic is one of the fundamental tenets of those who firmly believe in the virtues of capitalism.
The question of interest here: Do the current upheavals in the media market, including the above-mentioned and globally observable changes of ownership, jeopardize the brands that exist in the media market? What will remain of the iconic Wall Street Journal brand if Murdoch destroys journalistic independence and the quality of the product with his infamous "hands-on editorial approach" (Financial Times)?
In view of the mood of crisis, it must first be remembered that the major brands in the media industry have long been among the real power brands in their respective environments. Locally, regionally or globally. Which other brands do we habitually follow on a daily basis when it comes to finding our way in the world? Which other brands do we trust so unquestioningly when it comes to assessing developments around us - be it developments in world affairs or local entertainment at the weekend? And which other brands do we identify with as expressively as we do with the daily newspaper under our arm? All of this defines strong brands and accounts for their value, which is likely to be in excess of 1 billion US dollars for the major players in the industry.
However, the dangers for media brands seem depressing. What will become of the orientation if the idea behind the brand becomes blurred and is sacrificed on the altar of profit maximization that is devoid of content and substance? How can we trust the different expressions of these brands when we hear more and more that content is being created in overarching editorial pools in order to cut costs and is now only available on different user interfaces? And what are we still supposed to identify with when every anchor, every face is lost in the jungle of shuffled ownership structures, when the content-driven publisher is replaced by the cool media manager?
The conclusion seems ambivalent. The upheavals in the media sector are obviously jeopardizing the major media brands. At the same time, the opposite is also true: especially under the conditions of the current upheavals, the benefits of brands for media users and the value of brands for their owners in the media industry are - would be? - the performance of brands for media users and the value of brands for their owners in the media industry are more important than ever. Perhaps this is why Murdoch has realized that the strength of the Wall Street Journal brand "...is no esoteric nicety but is instead core to the future value of Dow Jones" (Financial Times).
Jürgen Häusler is CEO of the Interbrand, Zintzmeier and Lux Group in Zurich and honorary professor at the University of Leipzig